"the fiscal times" will talk about what effect the new health care rules will have on federal and state budgets. then sandy levenson, on the u.s. constitution. this is "washington journal." host: the house and session are in -- the house and senate are in session today. both are looking to pass legislation to give the government running until march. in the senate, they will take up the set -- the arms treaty with russia. we begin their with washington journal -- there with "washington journal." mitch mcconnell talks about why he is voting no. >> those senators should be

forced -- no senator should be forced to make a decision like this so they can tick of an item on a checklist before the end of the year. it is apparent why the administration wants to rush this treaty. it is in this context that we discover another important reason to oppose it. i am referring, of course, to the administration's pattern of rushing to policy judgment and then subsequently studying the problem that the policy decision was intended to address -- a pattern that has created more problems and complications then we started out with -- than we started out with. host: senator john kerry, also on the floor yesterday, talked about the debate so far on this s.t.a.r.t. treaty with past treaties. >> when they passed the first s.t.a.r.t. treaty in five days -- we are now passing more time on the street and we did on the for more complicated treaty at a

far more complicated time. the fact is that, if we go through today, which we will, on this treaty, and, depending on what happens with cloture and when the of the decide -- the other side decides when they want to vote, we would be here for nine days on this treaty, more time than we would have spent on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, s.t.a.r.t. ii, and the moscow treaty. this, they want to take for this one treaty. -- that is how much time they want to take for this one treaty. host: should the senate ratified this treaty? both are set up to take the cloture vote. this is the "miami herald" frontpage. politics and history collide as the treaty wraps up. inside "the "washington post " -- mullen urges the senate to

ratify the arms treaty. supporters attracted more republican votes, making it increasingly likely that the pact will be approved. the letter from andrew mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, intensifies the pressure on -- admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, intensifies the pressure on this national security issue. new york times -- nuclear-pact adds backers. it is been gop support, but flows are holding out for changes. the senate support builds for tax -- arms control. the senate moved closer on monday to approving this new arms control treaty with russia over the opposition of republican leaders as lawmakers worked on a side deal to assure skeptics that the arms pact would not inhibit american plans to build missile defense

systems. we're asking all of you, what do you think? should this be ratified? glenn, democratic line, go ahead. caller: yes, i do believe it should be ratified. i have watched the debate going for a few days. it is the same old, old. one side wants one thing. one side wants another. should ratify this because you have to start somewhere. thank you for taking my call. host: this is what the republicans have laid out as criticism of the treaty. they say -- they have zeroed in on what they consider important flaws, including terms on verification. there is the omission of smaller nuclear bombs and some non-binding language in the preamble but they argue would inhibit future american missile defense plans. caller: i have looked at the treaty and i do not see anything that would prohibit any type of verification, whether it

is true ntn, national technical means, or anything of the sort. i think the treaty has been negotiated fairly well. there are some things that could be better, of course. if you go for better things, you will take a longer time to get a treaty. i believe that they should ratify it and then come back with the resolution or whatever to get the things done that they wanted to get done. tactical weapons is a separate issue from strategic weapons. that is my belief. i have been involved in this -- host: you sound well-versed. what is your experience? caller: i was actually part of the inf treaty. i was the ground floor -- on the ground floor of building that. it was the on-sight inspection agency back in 1988 when president gorbachev and

president reagan signed that treaty. i had a great honor of being involved in that. host: who did you work with? >> the united states army. host: that was glenn, a democrat from virginia. david drucker, as work --walk us through this. caller: there are a couple of cloture votes coming up which will and the debate on a particular piece of legislation. one of the votes will be on the spending bill to ensure the government's life span 2011 -- in 2011. it would continue government operations through early march. it needs 60 votes. and the senate could proceed to a final vote on the spending bill, which would allow it to go

to the house, so they could vote and go out of town. immediately following that open, there will be a voting to end the debate on the s.t.a.r.t. -- that vote, there will be a vote to end the debate on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. they will be watching the vote to see if they get 67 in the cloture vote. they only need 60 in the debate. if they get to 67, or even 66, it might seem close. their only at 63, 64, 65, it -- if they are only at 63, 64, 65, they are close and a vote for ratification could still be difficult. what remains for wednesday and thursday -- it is kind of up in the air. it depends on whether the cloth needs to be run out -- it is what we call post-closure time.

there can be the vote for final passage, but it needs to occur no earlier than 30 hours after the first vote. unless everybody in the senate agrees to hold that at an earlier time. it's unclear what would be agreed to. even if the clock runs out on that 30 hours, it sets up a wednesday-afternoon/evening vote. they can all head for the airport after that. host: let's stay with the senate and the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. what are you hearing about it into 67 votes? "the philadelphia inquirer" -- never has anything been approved without the support of the senate minority leader. guest: it has never even been debated during a lame-duck session in this fashion.

that is one of the reasons republicans are upset -- the report -- the principle of the matter. it should not have been, what they say, "jammed down their throats" at this time of year, when a new congress is about to take office. there are some republican votes bang for it. i can tell there are three for sure -- dick lugar, scott brown, and bob corker. it will need six more republicans after that. there are universe of republicans who are there, considering voting, yes, but it is not yet guaranteed that it is going to happen. one of the factors, quite frankly, according to what republicans will tell you, is that they might be inclined to support the treaty on its merits, but they do not appreciate the way it has been done and they do not think it is

a problem to let it go into next year if necessary. host: of the house is also returning today. they were not hero of the weekend, like the senate. they are here to do what? guest: they are here to confirm the government's spending bill. before they left for the weekend, they approved a spending bill that of the government to stay open for business until late today and the senate followed suit. they're back in town to approve of government spending bill into next year. once that is done -- they might end up doing something next. there is a 9-11 health care funding bill for first responders that they might approve, but they are really here to do the spending bill. host: david drucker with "roll- call" newspaper. thank you for joining us.

you're talking about whether the senate should ratified the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. one quick comment and one statement, i guess you could say. i have been a republican for 32 years. i am bothered that my party is playing politics with the safety of this country, apparently just to try to get president obama -- if this is just a bad treaty, why do secretary george shultz, secretary jim baker, secretary lawrence eagleburger, and i believe one other republican secretary of state and defense -- bill cowen. they all support this. if this is so bad, i am lost to understand my party's explanation.

caller: -- host: q. do not think politics should be part of this. this is open with the baltimore sun" analysis -- "baltimore sun" analysis -- if lawmakers reject the pact, it could be seen by foreign leaders as weakness at the moment when the president needs a foreign-policy victory. the outcome of the vote could have a wide influence on how much other world powers help the united states in active -- in the afghanistan war, contain iran's nuclear program, and efforts to obtain middle east peace. caller: i think that is dead-on in the sense that my party is willing to endanger the safety of this country to play politics. it is just repugnant to me. host: what about senator kyl's argument that they should take more time and that it does not deal with tactical weapons? caller: they have had 1418 amendments.

i was watching the debate on c- span2 all weekend. there is no need for other amendments. talk a little bit more. if you care about this country, support this treaty, because we either live together or we die together. host: that was scott, a republican in akron, ohio. i want to show our viewers what is in this strategic arms reduction treaty -- s.t.a.r.t. it reduces deployed warheads to 153050 -- 15350. it limits verification requirements. it passed before relations committee -- the foreign relations committee. "the philadelphia enquirer" -- no treaty has ever addressed tactical weapons. both sides hope they can agree

on them after the pact is ratified. karen, is that you in watertown, new york? bridgeport, conn.. jim, a republican. caller: i think the process of having this lame-duck treaty rushed through the senate -- given the way the russians have been saved -- behaved, it is foolish. your caller talked about party- line votes. it is not politics, why are all democrats supporting this? can we trust the russians with issues like verification? i just think there is no need to ram this through in the lame- duck session. take your time doing -- take your time. do it right.

klaus >> do you think all republicans should oppose this? caller: -- host: do you think all republicans should oppose this? color >> it troubles me when someone says only republicans are opposing this. if every last democrat in this country supports this because zero, one set -- because obama wants it, i think that is wrong, too. do not sign the treaty given a lasting implications because it makes him look good or bad on the world stage. do it because it is good for the security of your people. i'm afraid that democrat partisan support is a big part of this as well. host: yahoo! news has the story -- obama woos senators on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. obama, vice president joe biden, and secretary of state hillary clinton wooed republicans by telephone.

admiral mike mullen wrote a letter unreservedly backing this pact. secretary of state clinton reached out to 17 republican senators and one democrat, joe manchin, speaking to lawmakers several times in some cases. it sounds like they do not know exactly where senator joe manchin, the new democrat from west virginia, might vote on this. here is another story related to not being here's over the weekend to vote. they mentioned his no show on key votes. he failed to vote on the repeal of the military's ban on gays and the dream act. the senator's spokesman said that he and his wife had to commit but with his grandchildren that he felt he could not break. -- had a commitment with his

grandchildren that he felt he could not break. had he been the only democrat to vote no on the don't ask, don't tell bill -- the bill passed. it will be signed by the president tomorrow morning. he would have opposed the dream act as well. brooklyn, new york, peter, independent -- we're talking about the s -- the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. what do you think? caller: i have a number of problems of things that have not been discussed with the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. no. bang one, we have been wrong about a number of countries developing their own weapons. number two, we have iran possibly building and a clear base right here in venezuela. venezuela has constantly threatened to build a nuclear base in their country. i would like to know if the s.t.a.r.t. treaty would allow us to see -- deal with that situation and possibly make adjustments.

host: ok. tennessee, j.d., republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: scott from ohio was not a republican, i want to make that clear. he is what they call a seminar caller. this treaty should be voted down. the russians have never lived up to any treaty they have signed with the united states -- ever. they have never paid as bad for leases from war ii. the zero as $33 billion. have not paid as back 0-- they owe us $33 billion. they have not paid us back a dime. this prevents us from having a missile defense for our own cities. look into the treaty before you start earning your mouth about what is happening with this -- running your mouth about what is

happening with this treaty. this treaty is a dangerous joke. that is all i have to say. this treaty should be voted down. host: rose up in cleveland, ohio, a democrat. what are your thoughts? caller: i believe this to another part of mitch mcconnell's plan to make president obama -- this is just another part of mitch mcconnell's plan to make president obama a one-term president. they want to make him powerless when he goes to other countries to try to negotiate for america. that is how selfish they are. i believe that all of the secretaries of state, anybody else in that area, specialists in that area, have said this treaty is a great treaty and we should have this treaty -- mr. kyl and mr. brand, they are not

specialists in that area. they will pick anything -- you know what? i think they would want not to pass it no matter what. it is a waste of our tax dollars. the are messing around in congress. we could be going on to something else. they are holding as back. host: "the washington post" notes that there are several camps are republicans. some republicans, including senator jim demand, have said that arms control treaties are outdated. they want to develop a highly advanced missile defense shield, something along the lines of president ronald reagan's "star wars" concept. independent line, jane. caller: i very much opposed this. the reason is that we cannot trust russia. we cannot trust china. israel is our best ally and they are going to go against israel in the near future.

mr. putin is kgb. they might have changed their name from kgb to freedom- something, just to deceive people. israel is our best ally. we should be on their side and not making friends and treaties with the people that are going to come against them. i think it is totally wrong. i think it will be very dangerous for this country. i oppose it strongly. host: atwater, california, andrew. caller: thank you for taking my call. quick comment -- what is the greek? one of your callers mentioned -- what is the hurry? president obama has zero foreign policy of prominence. everywhere you look, there is a disaster. north korea, iran, china.

i just do not understand what the hurry is. i do not know anything that is in the treaty. i do not know what is in the news. i think that there is cause for concern. they should take their time. host: before you go, let me ask you about the politics. here is the "washington post" -- senator john thune is a prominent opponent of the treaty. they're positioning themselves for presidential run and emphasizing their own of fides on national security. a few influential republican groups have taken strong positions against the pact. what do you think? caller: our system of government is rotten in terms of politics, but it is the best system in the world. i do not know why we want to break it down. i will tell you this -- anybody who is willing to run for president and oppose this -- you

need to take that into account. i'm telling you, this is not made very rfp -- mayberry rfp anymore. this is a dangerous world. host: @ do you think anyone will remember this in 2012? we're talking about so many other issues that could come up during the presidential campaign. caller: an elected official's job is public safety. why russia? this is a lame-duck congress. why rush on this. what are you afraid of? host: the "washington post" -- the white house is optimistic that it has the 2/3 of the senators required to senator scott brown declared he would vote for it. senator robert bennett's spokesman said he is planning on supporting the pact. senator johnny isakson, who was

on this program last week, said that he is likely to vote for it as well, unless it is likely -- unless it is changed significantly on the floor. richard lugar, olympia snowe, susan collins, george voinovich have all publicly back this. senator judd gregg told reporters that he was leaning toward supporting the treaty. bob corker said that he has not made a decision yet. john, a democrat -- your next. caller: i was in the military for four years and the national guard in 32 years. i'm not anti-military whatsoever. i have followed military procurement. what this whole argument about -- it is not about whether 1500 ready bombs are enough. what it is about is a missile

defense system. a lot of the higher-ups in the military are tired of spending money on it. we've spent almost $300 billion in the last 25 years on that system. it does not work. there are a lot of higher-ups in the senate and congress who are saying, let's drop it, let's get rid of it. it has gone so far that, to keep it going, they actually pushed through and had it deployed -- a system that does not work -- so they can sell it to the american public how great it is -- only defending the west coast with the period ended tour, we are not. we're going to put it in europe or defending europe -- no, we are not. this whole argument is about, let's keep the missile defense, let's spend more money on it. our military does not want to spend that $10 billion to $15 billion per year on a system that does not work. they want to take it and read

equip our military and our national guard and are -- and re-equip our military and our national guard. that is where we need the money. we do not need the missile defense. thank you very much. host: the history of the a security treaty -- the negotiations began in the 1980's and 1990's under ronald reagan and george h. w. bush, ratified in the senate in 1992 and 2003. the treaty expired in 2009. medvedev and obama signed the treaty in april, 2010. gary? caller: i do not think they should sign this. i really think most of those politicians up there are like sheep. it will go along with anything, especially if you grease their hand and take care of their constituents, or whatever.

i do not trust obama. he is weak. i think the russians will play him for a full power that is all i have to say. -- play him for a fool. that is all i have disappeared host: -- that is all i have to say. host: ok. caller: of these missiles are in poland, they could be used to protect -- if these missiles are in poland, they could also be used to protect moscow. we're not in the cold war again. what happened to all of that? host: the russians weighed in on monday about this vote. this is "the new york times" -- above and opponents have tried to amend the treaty, but -- republican opponents have tried to amend the tree, but the white house right -- amend the treaty,

but the white house has rejected that, because any change in the tax would require the u.s. and russia to go back to the negotiating table. unless you think the constitution was stupid to give a senate role -- the senate our role in this, you have about 9/10 of this right. maddy, a democrat in georgia. caller >> it is very sad that our country has come to this -- caller: it is very sad that our country has come to this point. the start treaty was great in the 1980's and 1990's and the republican leaders. we even have military people that support this treaty, but now that this has become a treaty that -- in so many words -- that our current president,

mr. obama, as negotiated, it is now -- the country has decided it is not good. if this is a bad treaty today, then it certainly has been a bad treaty all the time that the republicans have supported it. i think it is very sad that our country has come to this. we are jeopardized in social security -- jeopardize thing -- jeopardizing the social to disagree -- the social security of this country and of the world. it is a sad day for this country. host: north korea backed down, holds its fire, as the south proceeds with fire drills. pyongyang sees no need to retaliate. cbs news is reporting on its web

site that the homeland security department has confirmed a credible threat over the christmas holiday of simultaneous attacks targeting hotels and restaurants at many locations over a single weekend. virginia, beach -- virginia beach, ruby, a republican. go ahead. caller: this treaty only deals with icbm's, the big nuclear bombs that are in silos. it does not deal with tactical nuclear weapons at all, which russia has, like 2% more than we do, and the tactical nuclear weapons is what everyone is talking about when they talk about nuclear power for rationed -- nuclear proliferation. the other things that are disturbing about the treaty is that, our president ran against nuclear defense. we need to have nuclear defense. other very disturbing thing about it -- this is called the

new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the old one has lapsed. we have no treaty with russia right now. this recouples offensive and defensive weapons. our president does not want a nuclear defense. we need a nuclear defense, especially with what iran is doing. just off the eastern shore -- that is where we have protection. we do not have protection in poland. that was the third stage. the other stages are coming up, but they are not on the drawing board. the treaty deals with current defenses. we have to develop new defenses. we do not have them. it gives russia complete out. maybe that is not bad. if they change the preamble agreement, it could defeat the treaty, yet they say the preamble is meaningless. it is just words.

we have to vote this treaty down. i do not understand why it was pushed through so quickly. why has it not been debated? it was signed in april? why was it not brought up prior to this year? why wait until december? why debate it right now, at the end of the session? nothing is going to matter if we wait until next year and get the american people the opportunity to hear all about it and have it debated openly in congress. host: ruby, you sound like you have experience with this issue. caller: i have just been listening, listening, listening. host: you've been following it closely? caller: yes, i have. i do not think most people have. it only deals with icbm's. russia has 650. russia can have 150.

we have a president that says that he thinks there should be no nuclear arms in the world. i do -- i do, too. he has also said he thinks america should lead the way by example. does anyone out there actually think that, if we took all of our nuclear weapons out, nobody would start nuclear proliferation? what about our allies, europe, it is real? host: do you mind telling me how old you are and where you are getting you -- what are your recesses -- resources? caller: the senate debate. i'm 73 years old. i have seen six wars that we've been involved in. we need protection. we do not know how many tactical weapons have come across our border or are coming across our border. russia has 10% more than we do

and they are not above selling them to anybody. host: we will have to leave it there so we can get some other people in. our coverage of the senate continues on c-span2. george of the independent line. -- george on the independent line. caller: everyone is complaining about going into the lane-up session and pushing this through. the treaty has been -- into a lame-duck session and pushing this through. the treaty has been out there since april. they are still getting paid. this is what upsets me the most about these republicans -- they think they're working too hard, when the obstructed everything in the senate since the president has been in office. thank you and have a good year. host: miami, florida, robert is

a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. the guy that went before me said the same thing. this is ridiculous -- when you have people standing up in the senate and talking about how this is getting jammed down -- again, hearings back in april. these guys do not know what the s.t.a.r.t. treaty is -- is just ridiculous. everyone wants to go home for christmas instead of handling the business of the federal government. this is an important treaty. it protects all of us. president obama does want to have us affect the nuclear proliferation because we have bombs that could destroy this world plenty times over.

it is not safe. we have to work together with all of these other countries to address this issue. need to stopple being so partisan. this is not about president obama produces about the safety of the entire world, not about the the the obama -- this is not about president obama. it is about the safety of the entire world, not about obama. host: thank you. boosting republican efforts to curb key elements of president barack obama's domestic agenda. officials could shift money around to keep within federal agencies the health care and wall street regulation. republicans could try to block such moves through legislation. congressional republicans have said they would try to defund enactment of the least popular provisions, particularly in the

irs efforts to enforce the requirement that most americans terry health insurance -- carry health insurance. they're looking at expanding medicaid insurance program for the port and for subsidies to offset the cost of buying insurance for the were earners. we will talk about this at -- they're looking at expanding medicaid insurance program for the poor and for subsidies to offset the cost of buying insurance for lower earners. we will talk about this at 8:30. in "the financial times," senator saxby chambliss and mark warner -- and senator mark warner are attempting to rally congress to a difficult, bipartisan consensus to tackle the long-term debt problem in the u.s. it could add pressure on to obama to come up with his own

solution before the state of the union address. they are teaming up on the deficit. front-page of "de washington times," fcc set to ok rules on the internet. the gop opposes the neutrality plan. increasing government oversight of the internet -- it is difficult to tell who objects more, republicans who denounced the move, or democrats who dismiss the reform as too weak to do the job. that is what the fcc will be taking up today. how do you think the senate should vote on the start treaty? caller: i think the senate should but the whole doggone thing -- put the whole doggone thing on hold and take more time to look at the issues. i am a registered republican, but i am not happy with either side of the calling -- coin. track our representatives'

records and the decisions they have made which have led us into this financial mess and all the other financial and -- the other messes going on, and given the fact that there are so many countries trying to develop nuclear weapons -- i remember the cuban missile crisis. the only thing that got the russians to back off was the fact that the russians knew that we could hit them as hard or harder than they could hit us. that is the only reason we were able to avoid that complete and total catastrophe. that is the only thing that kept europe from being over ran by the soviets, was the fact that we had nuclear weapons that the soviets were afraid of. that is the only thing that has kept this whole thing in balance, the m.a.d. -- mutually- assured destruction -- i know it sounds crazy, but as long as the russians and the chinese think

we can hit them as hard or harder than they can, they are not going to try anything. if all we had to do was planned as in the sandbox and everyone played nice with us -- we think all we have to do is play nice in the sandbox and everyone can play nice with us. mr. putin is kgb. he could shoot your family and then probably go have breakfast. he is a tough negotiator. i think that we need to take a lot of time and make sure we understand the issues because this is something, once it is ratified, that becomes part of our constitution, part of the highest law in the land, and we are bound by it. host: that was cal, a republican, in utah.

we will move on to shirley. caller: i have never called in before. i am not for or against this. i do not know anything about this. they're pushing it and pushing it. they need to go home. how does president obama ansip there -- just because he wants to past stuff -- and let his wife and kids go to hawaii without them -- him? they need daddy. he is sitting there wasting time to push things -- i feel like it is time to leave this to pelosi. i just wanted to quit and go home. come back rested and prepared to do some work. host: speaking of nancy pelosi, she sat down with a long-time reporter on capitol hill, and this is the headline from the interview, "policy -- no

regrets. the outgoing speaker looks forward to 2011." caller: good morning, america. good morning, greta. i hope i have the opportunity to speak like the people who were against the treaty. i notice that the woman from georgia, who is for the signing of the treaty, and made all of the sense in the world, you let her speak, but you did not engage her. the woman came in behind her from gen -- from virginia. i predicted this is what you do -- you engaged with the naysayer. host: i cannot engage everybody. i did engage in the first caller who supported it. caller: i am just talking about me as a c-span the work on a daily basis. we're not talking about -- people have to go home -- they

have to work. there sanitation department people who work on the coldest day of the year -- there are sanitation department people who work on the coldest days of the year. nobody is telling them to go home to the whole tea party movement was about washington coming together and doing the people's business. the idea of us having this defense against nuclear weapons is ridiculous. nobody will survive a nuclear attack. it has been proven in world war ii -- what happened to japan. it is not as simple as turning on your television and having an opinion. put your pressure on your politicians throughout the year to take care of your business. it ain't about them going home for christmas. they live quite well. host: we have your point. "new starts, old illusions -- the arms treaty is irrelevant in

today's nuclear proliferation. this is a dangerous world that will require new, hard-headed, anti-proliferation strategies, not the irrelevancy of the new start." that is "the wall street journal" editorial this morning. also in the new york times, "fear versus reason." another editorial this morning, from "usa today," "start pact becomes political plaything." caller: the question is, can we trust russia? since when has russia kept their word? it is to my understanding on this s.t.a.r.t. treaty, if we sign this bill, we will not be able to protect ourselves.

administration has given up a lot of our sovereignty already. my question is this, too, according to cnn world report, russia and china have agreed to use their own currency to back each other when purchasing their products between each other, russia and china. they have been deleted -- have deleted the u.s. dollar. as has been asked about by our government, -- and this has been asked about by our government. we could see superinflation in america. we will not be able to afford even a cup of coffee. we have got to detect ourselves. if russia was a friend of ours, they would not have done that -- we have got to protect ourselves. if russia was a friend of ours, they would not have done that. host: the u.s. census bureau

will come out with its first 2010 census results. we will be covering that event at 11:00 a.m. on c-span3. we also want you to know that the census director, robert gross, will be joining us on the "washington journal," thursday, 7:45 a.m. we're covering the nato air training commander who will be conducting an on-the-record reading to the pentagon press corps. but where website -- go to our website for more information. on christmas day, we will be joined by a general from afghanistan to talk about what the troops are doing there. we have a democrat as our last caller. go ahead. c caller: i have no faith in our

senate. they're only good at putting cash in their pockets. host: we will be talking in about 45 minutes about state budget crises and a new health care law. obie our topic at 8:30 a.m. eastern time -- that will be our topic at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. up next, a look at digital learning in our education. what resources could be used to help education at all levels? as we come to the end of 2010, a couple of things i want to show you. the audacity of austerity -- that is the 2010 year -- word of the year. merriam webster named "austerity" the word of the year for 2010. the state of being austere. jibjab did its annual mashup.

>> ♪ we arrive in ohnine on -- 2009 on a rainbow of hope a tea party rally the bank going broke so long, 2010 we passed health care they shouted "repeal" [unintelligible] volcanos, bailouts in greece the smell from the bp spill so long to your 2010 i passed reform based on justice yet my ratings fell to the floor i got karzai and mcchrystal and no credit ofr -- for ending

a war [unintelligible] 2010, we can't wait for you just like htat -- that guy from jetblue we were so sad when rahm said goodbye [unintelligible] just wants to get high wars and mountains of debt a nuclear threat that's why i want just give me a chance so long to your 2010 ♪ need stitches. ♪

>> "washington journal" continues. host: bob wise is the co-chair of the digital learning council, here to talk about how we can add digital learning to our current education. want to go through some of your points about the status quo, which you call "dismal." one-third of third and fourth graders are nearly illiterate. last year, 1.3 million students failed to graduate from high school. an estimated $1 billion is spent each year on college remediation. among the top 30 industrialized countries, u.s. tie schools rank 21st in science and 25th in math.

how could digital learning to improve the situation? guest: this is why jeb bush and i came together to form the digital learning council. it is not delivering good education content to thousands -- it is about delivering good education content to thousands. if you think -- let me give you a quick number. there are 440 high schools in georgia, 88 certified physics teachers. how do we get good, high-quality physics in every one of those high schools? i picked georgia incidentally, because that is true across the country. we can bring the content into those classrooms, marion it with an effective teacher, to -- marrying it with an effective teacher, to change that.

education and technology have improved great -- produced great savings. in education, we tend to use this the least effectively. 55 industry sectors -- education is 55th in the effective use of technology. we have a lot to do to bring high-quality learning to our students. host: it is there not an l -- isn't there a logistical issue? the u.s. has not got the fastest in a neck-and-neck and speed. we're 25th. guest: -- is not fastest in internet speed. we are 25th. guest: we need to be improving. there are many parts -- a lot of parts of our country where broadband is not what it should be. let's take it vantage of where we do have it and make sure we get it where it -- take

advantage of where we do have it and make sure we get it where it needs to be. the onlineeport on imperative -- we did a report on the online imperative. it becomes cost-effective overtime kid is is not simply laboring digital learning on top -- it becomes cost-effective over time. it is not simply labyering digital learning on top of the other. we spend many billions of dollars on textbooks. textbooks are going to become increasingly a thing of the past as our children carry kindles or ipads or netbooks and are downloading content every day. it becomes cost-effective over time.

if we have five high schools with five students who want account those course, but we only have one populist teacher -- who want a calculus course, but we only have one teacher, do we hire two more teachers? morningr topic this is digital learning. you also note that other countries are way ahead of the united states when it comes to digital learning. what are they doing? guest: a number of nations, peru and others, decided, rather than to plod along with the tradition of land lines, to jump immediately to wireless. other nations have more sophisticated wireless systems.

turkey as a large number of students taking online courses. other nations have recognized the importance of digital learning in some capacity. we do have it in this country. it is more used in higher education. already we have, most likely, 1 million students didn't least one online or digital cores -- at least one online or digital course. in 10 years, at least half of the courses could be online. the superintendent of the houston school district predicts that, within five years, a 1/3 of his courses will be online. one thing that jeb bush and i wanted to do, working with digital learning council, we

want to provide a roadmap for the policy makers. that is why these 10 elements came out. what do i have in my state that meets these elements? what do i need to have? after being in congress and the state legislature, i learned that legislative bodies do not always handle technology well. by the time of legislative body get a consensus, the technology has moved on to the next step. can are 10 steps you take that will facilitate without being overly prescriptive. host: "ten elements of high- quality digital learning." guest: all students should be digital learners.

whether they are in public school or home schooled or whatever. i am not about your advocate, and never have been. i believe technology has leapfrogged that issue. this is about making sure the highest-quality content is available to our learners, meaning all students should be eligible -- have access to digital learning. host: students should have personalized learning. guest: it is not one size fits all. you might learn faster than i do in a certain course. with technology and digital learning, you are able to progress at your speed. i can progress at my speed. there's something wonderful happening to this freeze at teacher up -- happening. this will free the teacher up. you can progress at your speed. the teacher can spend more

time to help me develop. the military calls this "the fourth multiplier. -- "the fourth multiplier" because it allows teachers to engage differently. it is a different type of training. the same skills that make a teacher great today will make a teacher great in the technology age -- empathy, tailoring, education for each student. the teacher needs wired teacher. -- needs to be a truly wired teacher. it is all part of the wired generation. it does not mean that a teacher can teach with technology effectively. we have to recognize the importance of teachers being able to use this technology,

verbally -- technology comparably -- technology comfortably. could bethere teachers at both ends of the spectrum. the online teacher is able to reach a lot more. the teacher in the classroom needs to become the guidance person, the facilitator of the discussion. i think it empowers the teacher. i will not be a certified physics teacher, but if i have a an adequate -- have an adequate understanding, i can guide the discussion. this is about marrying content with the classroom. this does not replace the teacher as the so-called sage on the stage. the teacher is vitally important, but not responsible

for being the sole repository of knowledge. host: advancement, content, instruction, providers, assessment, funding -- we can talk more about those with our guest, bob wise, co-chair of the .igital learning council and why was governor bush part of this? .

45 minutes a day for 180 days a year and assuming i get a passing grade,, no matter how fast i advance or how slowly i learn, i move on as long as i've had my seat time. we argue that we should be doing away with seat tile and you should move based upon your progress. host: so each student would work individually on their own curriculum for the year, and however quickly they move along is up to them? guest: yes. and by the same token, if i need extra time, i get that extra time and it frees the teacher up to -- host: doesn't that require a lap top on almost every kid's desk? guest: most likely an ipad or

desk top but how much are we spending for text books? and now i have the ability to download every day and get the most recent information from whomever the provider is. and i think it's going to shift the publishers. they understand what's happening. and another factor that's happening totally by coincidence, the state has now led this effort for common course standards in english, math, and now 3 states plus the district of colombia have adopted a standard for english, language arts and math so it's like setting a 4 g standard on cell phones for the country, because now every state or 44 of the states having agreed to, this every content provider

knows the content they need to be providing as standard in those key areas. host: jim, from columbus, ohio thank you for waiting. caller: i want to thank you so much for bringing this to the attention of the people. i think that teachers are too much biblyo files. they love the printed world. and -- they love the printed word and it's an mt. world. i work primarily with teens but they are opiate-addicted and it's a small town in ohio but i'm sure it's national. and they are looking for instant contact. and they are bright people, but they get board in the schools. kids have ipods and computers everywhere. they are getting drugs, you know, delivered to them.

opiates. they know how to use them. we've got to stay current with who they are, their interests, how they can remain in the classroom. and i see it shaking out. i work with the family court, and it affect it is young children in the home. it's about time, and i really so lute you, and i look forward to hopefully -- on making big changes. host: the -- guest: the caller makes an excellent point. where dim the learning is being used in the area of non-consumer that is not in the main classrooms but in situations like what you're talking about. dropout recovery, where young people have already dropped out and they are not going back into the traditional brick-and-mortar high school and it's providing a means for them to do recovery. alternative schools where the

student for whatever reason is not able to be in the regular high school. for older students, that is who want to go back into the system to get a high school degree. so there's a number of instances where learning is taking place on the fringes, then we have a virtual school where the student is learning at home. i talked to a young teenage tennis star who literally travels the world and talked to a teenage actor who travels the world. these are students who are getting their high school education online virtually, and not missing a beat. so there are a number of applications. but the one particularly you're talking about is the one where they are young people that have demonstrated they have a problem and are not in the traditional brick-and-mortar school but it tends to start on the fringes, get improved and then move to the main stream, and that's where we are now in

digital learning. host: you're on the air with governor wise. caller: thank you again. i want to comment on bringing this to the forefront. digital learning is perhaps the most up dated way to bring learning to young people. but the average age of comprehension for the american student if they are at the sixth grade level, you mentioned it was now down to fourth grade level. for them to become more educated, it does not seem beneficial to the political or corporate interests here in the united states. clearly, the question of the book learning and book writers and the money they put into that process should be a contract -- in opposition of what you're seeking to accomplish. is that factual? where is your opposition in this? >> well, children learn at all

levels but at different levels of comprehension so digital and any learning takes place starting with early childhood on through. digital learning is actually being employed in early grades. i ran across a successful example in chicago, for instance, where beginning with the third-degree grade students were learning math online. you also make a point i think is important about perhaps rance and where it could be built particularly in the textbook publishing industry. if you're a textbook publisher today, you know that you've got move with the times, because text books, the day our son and daughter used to watch them walk out the door and seemed to be 30 or 40 pounds in a book bag. the day is coming rapidly where their successors are going to be carrying a digital learning device that will weigh less than a pound probably in which they will be able to download

most of their lessons. so as one textbook publisher put it to me. she said we understand we're not going to be in the publishing business much longer. so a smart publisher is onboard in digital learnings. the thing about technology. look at how whether we're talking about the breakup of the telephone company many years ago or online buying and purchasing, technology has a way of moving around barriers or leapfrogging, and that's what's going to happen here if anybody tries to stop it. we don't want to stop it or prescribe how it works. technology works on its own but what we want to do is set up a road map so policy makers when making critical budget decisions in this next year, the state policy makers understand this is something that they need to be implementing as rapidly as possible both for interrogatory learning and also to lean

towards cost effectiveness. host: clawed you on the democratic line, you're on the air. caller: i've been interested in this story for a long time and i'd like to relay a story. i work for a large company in cincinnati. and we needed to do regular trainings of our scientists so we formed teams. this is 10 years ago, to determine what content we would use for the training and programming software already exists that allows you to create digital learning programs that can be monitor bid whoever is interested in tracking whether or not the information is disseminated. the material can be put into a form and modified easily by -- for example, a teacher could modify it. teaching teams could be put together to decide what content is in there. you tend to get rance from the

groups that you're going to displace when you put your learnings together, so you will have to get your teachers together immediately rather than turning your content over to your publishers. you wouldn't need snow days or massive amounts of money spent on transportation right now would be eliminated. my grandson and i had a discussion. he's 8 years old and he's computer literate already and on snow days most kids spend their time on the computers and the prospect of being able to learn while he's at home is a good one. you can use sound, video k4ri7s. all of this can be incorporated into the learning, so i don't you target children who might not read well, and you can strengthen their reading by the sounds. host: governor? guest: absolutely. i had to smile a little bit, because i remember the snow day as being something we cheered because we all had a day off.

but now it's, like, go right to that computer and you also pointed out excellent examples of cost effectiveness. in rural areas, and i come from a rural area. rural areas, there's two very real benefits. one is for the first time you're able to get digital learning. that is content material and science, technology, whatever subject you need in rural areas eastbound if you don't have a teacher who is able to provide it. second point you make is this could well change the way many of our schools operate. we'll still have brick-and-mortar learning centers, but that child may not have to ride that school bus every day of the week but maybe go two days a week. so as you pointed out, transportation costs and when you have digital learning, that means a spanish teach they are in san antonio, for instance, is able to deliver his or her

content to dozens if not hundreds of children across the country. there's something you can either be async insist or sync insist meaning either you can be real-time meaning the course is coming at a certain time online or you can be able to pull that course down at any time during the day. so if you're a student who is working, that means you can get later at night, earlier in the morning. once again, it's about being more flexible. i guess i look at it this way. how many of us made decision some time in the addition in the last month not to go to the shopping mall? didn't want to brave the crowds or travel across town and did online purchasing? something that 15 years ago was rare now it's becoming the norm. digital learning is becoming much the same. host: is this getting

attraction on what level? guest: really on every level. we have a number of successful examples where digital examples and learning is underway. virtual schools and it's coming about from a combination. we have a general motors moment right now in this country. general motors three years ago woke up and realized, whoops, they don't like our prunchingt product and now we have less money to make it with. with digital learning we have the ability to delive a much better product, greater student outcome and also to meet the budget constraints most schools are facing. so for this host of reasons, the need and demand for greater outcomes and the where we are going. not deliver the same delivery model but why digital learning is coming on at every level. and governor bush and i wanted to provide a road map. accidentally we didn't stop here.

there's something d-o- m-a digital website learning website that talks to people about what they can do to advance digital learning in their communities. host: this is the headline on the associated press 16 hours ago. new guns take office amid historic budget crisis. many of these new ones are saying we're still not going to cut back on education. the states the voters are saying we don't want you tut back. 3wur how are they going to be able to afford digital learnling. >> they can't afford not to put it into place. by that i mean the fact of the mater is if you're going to keep trying to deliver education yoo using the same model we've used, you're going to have less outcome with less money. so the answer is not to cut back necessarily on education but say rheal indicate those dollars sauer even more

effective and every industry and business i know particularly in the last 10 years has had to boost its productivity using technology and innovation. education has been one that, as i mentioned earlier, it's the slow toast move in this direction. we see positive signs, but we won't be able to keep spending the same money the same way. we're not going to have the same money and the results we have been getting -- don't make the mistake. don't take think you take your existing education and put this layer of learning on top of it. you have to engineer and work with your teachers and how do we bring in digital learning and make ourselves more cost effective at the same time. host: number eight on the elements of digital high-quality learning is testing. measure student learning. how do you incorporate current testing we do with digital learning? >> it's actually already being done in terms of online assess

pennants, a number of districts are using this partially. you're going to see with the common course standards being implemented, the two con soshya that are developing, states are developing into con sore shea. you referred to the international rankings, the recent testing that was announced 3 is developed nations -- 31 nations -- developed nations. some of that done online some of that in this country. first of all, our students are computer literate already. the second part of it is you get immediate return. now that teacher has immediate feedback and can make decisions reality as to what those tests show. host: on the line. j.d., republican. caller: good morning. what bob said is also a big

obstacle in the corporate world. i came over 20 years from europe, and we had launched an online university very early. so i have seen recently with an established american icon that the partys which are 20 years in the company despise modern media and the ones that go up with digital learning like myself in the technology world love it. and also in the college system i have seen computers get replaced almost every five years but a lot of teaching programs are in there and totally obsolete because after 20, or 30 years in the system, the teaching staff has a hard time to catch on. so i think between the education community and the corporate world and in the education world by schools and

universities should step over the boundaries a little bit more and make think tanks, because wick media has proven to us in the last six or seven years that every united global effort to share knowledge. and i would say u.s. corporate can take advantage of it. because it's done by volunteers and we are willing to help each other. guest: well, and there's a lot of movement toward open source education platforms that it's part of digital learning. but the caller makes a good point. the treaty -- if i'm in a textbook and look up star treaty, i'm going to find the old star treaty but not the new one and all that's going on. on the other hand if i've got a net book or ipad or whatever it is lap top with digital learning, i am download that had day and will have the most

immediate discussion of the star treaty. and so it goes with any topic of issue and as a teacher based upon how well i do, you'll get immediate response and by the same token you can say bob has strengths here but needs help here and we can move him on here. that's what's critical. host: the washington times front painl, this is a headline that's in many of the papers. the s.e.c. ready to set rules on neutralty, does that have issue with this? >> the net neutralty will play itself out. what i want is to make sure there's adequate infrastructure so every child can benefit from digital learning and so every state can implement it. once again that states look and make sure they have policies that are not discouraging digital learnling.

there's some cases where there's too much protection. one state has a rule that you can have online learning as long as it doesn't come from more than one contiguous county away. it's like telling me that i can order ear book from amazon but i have to go to a local book store to download it. so we have to make sure the policies we had on learning -- third is that we are preparing our teachers. teachers are important in the online delivery process as well as in the classrooms. host: henrietta, democratic line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead with your comment or question. caller: my comment is this -- here in the south we have teachers that are put in regular public school who really aren't up to par.

and these are usually the schools where kids of color attend. and they have their counselors and they tell them, oh, well, you're not college material. this disheartens a child and makes them think, well, i guess i can't do it. but these kids are so smart now. i'm a great grandmother, and i look at them, and i say oh, they got so much potential. and i really want to see all our kids succeed. all the money, tax money goes to the good schools, you know? host: governor? guest: first, we have to have high expectations from all our children because you're correct all our children can learn and our nation's economy depends on all our children. low income, all children of color doing well.

because the they do well our economy will do well but if they don't we will not have the skilled workers we need as an economy. and digital learning, we can guarantee whatever child wherever they live, high quality construction. so they will be able to have access to the highest level and when and if they enter school with certain challenges, like, perhaps they are not reading a at their grade level, with digital larrying, tough tools to build them up and catch them up to where they should be. in order to meet those expectations. i saw a child, low-income student write on the black board three words, believe in me. believe in me that i can achieve, and i will meet that. give me the support i need. with dinl the learning, you're now able to provide that need, that kind of access to the

course material. >> an email, after a long time i'm convinced the clear obstacle is the teacher. your thoughts? >> i believe that's not the case. because this is a technology age, and for the teacher unions this offers opportunities. here are the opportunities. first of all, for a teacher of the teacher unions. this now gives a chance for the teacher union to provide highly qualified content images. if i went what i would be looking at is this is a means of providing a stream of revenue to my -- a different operating model is what i got, but who better to provide high-quality teachers than the national board of professional teaching standards and other organizations of teachers where they focus on con sent in and now they are the ones providing

the content whether contracting with a provider or doing it all in another district. >> remember we're going to lose teachers next year. they are 50 years old and able to retire out. we have a wave of new teachers in the system and we've got to make sure we get the teachers to the areas and regionens that don't often get those learning abilities. host: one says she would have loved to have had access to this technology, especially for those students who had great difficulty of focusing in on the classroom who were add-adhd , those who according tore their parents could spend hours playing video games. she writes her concern would be

that it would replace the social zation of the regular classroom. guest: that's a fair question but i've come to find out it will enhance or increase it because that teacher is freed up from constantly having to be the repaz tory and work with the children's individual needs confident he or she has the backup of high quality content coming from different sources. host: how do you incorporate social networks and gaming and texting, those sort of things kids love to do, and channel that towards education? guest: gaming is becoming one of the main points. the key is to engage students to make the education relevant. not to bore them with that is called drill and kill. so engaging them -- i was at a

rural community in which they are developing their own games. they are on the internet and learning what it takes and interacting with each other and using what i call deeper learning skills. because when they do that, they are now involved in communication and using technology application and have to be involved with teamwork interacting with one another and all skills increasingly that are no longer future but the present demands of our job market. 12k3w4rs next caller. good morning, chuck. caller: good morning greta and mr. wise. host: morning, sir. caller: i don't know if mr. wise is talking about just high school learning. my comment has to do with a college and graduate-level learning. aye got a mast ners counseling and did ph.d. work but never finished. dropped out for personal reasons. i retired recently and thought

what the heck? i'll look into online learning, but a ph.d. would cost me about $150,000. in college and at the graduate level, cost is a real issue. anyway, that's my comment. guest: sure. no. thank you. i'm talking basically about k- 12. 3wur i'm surprised to hear that figure on online learning. the highest i ever heard -- in the higher ed system $99 a month. you take the courses as long as you want. and that's the encouraging thing about technology is we're seeing a lot of different types of approaches. some are going to succeed and some are going to fail with those people out there. but i don't want to get away and think anybody can enter the field one of the principals outlined by governor bush and myself in the general council

is that there be a high standard. so we want states is to do is -- arbitrary standards saying there's only one provider eligible. or one contractor. we want students to have access to a wide range but still make sure it's high quality. >> does that mean there needs to be standards set at the stable. tall states have their -- but states have come together with the common core and set the standards from all the way down to grade one in materials of english, language, arts and math. the states can do this. don't want federal standards but we want the states to make sure that in their review process and in their approval process they are aapplying --

they are applying this. and those aren't limitted to just one. host: mark is a republican in ar guile, texas. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i find this to be not only attract i and knott but incredibly awe raelian. i mean, what a more perfect solution? the textbook commission and in-home schooling. get to do away with some teachers and the new wave of teachers you were talking about can -- faster than i can turn it on, but they can't balancal a checkbook. i was raised in catholic schools where you actually -- and i agree. schools and classes need to be engaging not entertaining. and there's a world of ditches

between the two. i just -- while it's attractive. much like the fruit from the garden of eden is so attractive, but it's not going to be good for us because there's no diversification of thoughts. can you picture a well-known constitutional scholar whose way of teaching a class out of the constitution and the fact that he keeps trying to violate it. guest: in terms of awe raelian, i would sub nate this digital learning -- traditionally the teacher in the classroom. i found most often not to be awe raelian either. but it does permit regular access and permit the student to engage different sources of information. and it also permit it is student to have access to

information that he or she otherwise would not have. but indeed what other areas that can be useful is to provide students in a community which has one dominant industry and permit it is student now by being online to be able to see and have his or her eyes open and be made aware of a number of opportunities. so i see this as opening doors and not closing them and certainly not directing people in a certain direction. i have not seen the internet and all the blogosphere. i had not seep all that funneling it into one way but more of an explosion of sorts. host: governor as we're talking, and we have teleprompters here in the studio. cnn playing so we know what other networks are talking about what we're talking here and cnn is running a tab with 68% of the students admitting

to texting in the classroom. so adding this, could it be a distraction? guest: i would argue they are texting because one they are probably board. they are probably not engaged in front of a computer or other device that is -- would tie them up from texting, and it's interesting, a student one time described entering the classroom saying it's like getting on to a commercial airliner. i'm wired all the way up to the door and then i have to power down. this is how many of us get our information now digitally. so the classroom needs row toflect that and not only reflect that but embrace and expand upon it. so let's get those students texting but as part of a team on a project. an architect in san francisco about design of a bridge and questions they have. let's get them texting in an educational way. host: governor bob wise thank you for talking to our viewers.

coming up next in our last hour we're going to be talking about what some have called civil religion and the constitution rand whether or not it's america's civil religion. first we're going to talk about the budget crisis and the new health care law with liz peaks of the fiscal times but first a c-span update from c-span radio. >> it's 30 past the hour. speaking earlier on "g.m.a." one says he's worried about terror attacks on the united states by americans and high on the list is cleric anwar al alocky, a u.s. citizen believed to be hideing in yemen. he says he has a familiarity with the u.s. that terrorists usually lack and went on to say the terrorism is threat a real and constant and are concerned

authorities may have missed a signal that an i tack is coming. >> and the nato force in afghanistan is denying the u.s. military plans to carry out ground raids inside pakistan in pursuit of insurgent leaders hiding there. today it was heightened, the sensitivities in the afghanistan strategy review. and in iraq lawmakers have unanimously approved a government headed by current nouri al-maliki. after an inconclusive parol meantry in mar. -- in march. those are some of the headlines. >> saturday the constitutionalty of displaying

christmas decorations on town property. >> with the exception of the cross the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious sfwols in this country and -- >> listen to the argument on c-span radio. and on line at journal@c-span.org. -- at c-span radio.org. >> "washington journal" continues. >> liz peak is joining us columnist and contributor from the fiscal times here to talk about the new health care law and you write about the new health care law. and that the biggest athlete it may not be the republicans wanting to reappeal it, but rather what the crisis that states face with their budgets. >> well, this law imposes on the states an enormous mandate an increase in medicaid

requirements and it's not funded through the law, so many states attorney general challenged is because they don't want to take on these new mandates. last year the states had a collective budget definite of $174 billion in spite of having-seed tens of billions from the stimulus act which of course, will be winding down. so the state's fiscal outlook is catastrophic and everybody knows it, but everybody is sort of ignoring it, hoping it will some how go aaway. but in this particular arena i think this is going to be the big stumbling block. host: studies showed the public in these states do not want the governors to make doubts education and health care. saying most of these viewers viewed that as the responsibility of state governors. >> well, sure.

no one wants programs -- if you have a state $30-$40 billion in the red, you have to make cuts. one of the interesting sort of side notes here is during this entire tax debate, president obama failed to discuss the fact that one of the reasons federal taxes on the wealthy should be limited, the federalal act should be limit sincere because the states are already going there. they stocked the shelves pretty hard because their budget needs revenues, but the wealthy are already paying higher taxes and it's like the federal government stops the play these two as completely separate isolated budget issues, when they are not. if people paying teengs cities or taxes are not paying home

the all cities. i think we're looking at a really troublesome situation. and the medicaid requirements ladled on to the states by obama care. by the new health care bill are just going to be too much. host: are states looking to -- in the research you did -- looking to increase property taxes and local taxes in order come up with the money? >> absolutely. i think in the last year races and fees looked at what eats the have since 2000. and they have basically pulled every stopper out of every bottle they can open, looking for places to raise money whether it's on gambling fees or property taxes or whatever, but you know ironically some of

the states are in the worst trouble, like new jersey, and they already -- the elevate there's limits to what states can do. people can move. and in fact, the census i think is revealed today. i believe. and we're going to see more and more information of just how high taxes are causing migrations to those states. unfortunately in the digital age of high-information, a lot of people have mobility. and in fact,, it would probably be worse if not for the mortgage crisis. >> the census will be revealed and we're cover that live on c-span for those interested. the virginia judge rules individual mandate in his view is unconstitutional. how does that play into the

expansion of medicaid and the burden on states? >> well, i think judge hudson's ruling was just the first time anyone other than well known libertarian groups have said wait a minute, is it really legal under our constitution under the commerce act to require people to buy something? i believe that has been done. you can buy car insurance, but you don't have to buy a car. so from the beginning, this was something a lot of people objected to in the health care bill. in other words the issue is where do you stop, is that right >> so maybe you have to require people buy diet soda who are overweight all kinds of things can be deemed in the national interest. but again, people who value personal freems are saying what? i don't have to do this? and the constitution basically prohibits this kind of intrusion into personal

activity. now the government has countered it's -- that the fee, the penalty for not buying it is not a penalty. it's a tax. but of course, during the entire lead up to passage of the bill, they argued just the opposite. so they are a little bit of a bind. in my opinion disappoint i think what's happening is there's an awful lot of ways people are coming out and taking a shot at the health care bill. some constitutional. some financial. and basically rolling on the fact that still the majority of americans going coast-to-coast with inexhaustible energy trying to extol virtue of it. people still don't like to -- host: economic reason for it written baez rey klein, a

reporter. he says if you eliminate the mandate and remove any incentive for youpping people, you are automatically reducing the cost for those individuals needing it. he writes this adverse -- in the non-group market by an estimated 15%-20% relative to current law. without it, enrollees would have higher expected health spending on average than those enrolled under current law. >> that's why this bill is extremely crucial. people don't have to buy nurns -- it will create a tremendous financial burden on insurance companies and on individuals who need insurance.

im, you have -- i mean, you have to have healthy people involved to spread the rate. we've already seen that. one of the un intended consequences of the bill is the insurance company stopped writing insurance for the child-only currencies, because the way it was reworded, the only parents with sick children needed -- in other words parents with sick children would weigh in at the last minute and buy their insurance because of thal fact that insurers can't reject people who are already sick, so that option was basically closed off. it's a problem. it's a problem for the bill for sure. >> let's go to mario in houston, texas. you're on with liz peek of the fiscal times. go ahead. >> good morning, mario. caller: i have a question for you today. do you think the health care bill, is that going to have any affect?

you mean will -- guest: will take effect or have an effect on insurance costs? host: i'm not sure what he was asking so let me get you reaction to this wall street jourm funding bill snags health care law. as you probably know the senate deal does not include any money for the administration to begin implementing this -- this is the first opening savelo of the newly-elected republicans in the house and also the shift in the senate to basically -- as they say -- starve the bill. they are going to try to withhold funding for the implementation of the bill. and the implementation is sfapt. you're talking about a huge number of regulatory agencies, etc. and they are basically figuring by with holding money from it,

it eventually can't roll out. i don't know how this is going to may out. it's a stalling technique and doesn't seem to me it's something they can basically removed -- remove. host: we'll move on to a demeament pennsylvania. caller: hello. i would like to comment that the reality is that people will still get stick. -- get sick. and they are going to still show up for care but more expensive care, because they will be sicker and require more intensive care when they show up to these hopts. so if they -- if we don't increase funding to meet the need of the sicker moo -- caller: seriously sicker people dying on the street corner because they cannot afford

health care? and it's this argument for a single payer solution. thank you. guest: thank you. you know, the so-called single option or whatever is not in the bill, of course. and i think that you raise a very good point. look, going back to the gipping of this conversation. everyone in the country agreed, individuals and businesses alike agreed rapidly rising health care cost was -- i think one of the disappointments for republicans was that there were some things that just weren't tackled at all in the bill. for example, tort reform. tort reform is sort of one of these buzzwords that people now just tune out. but the reality is doctor transs, hospitals, everybody tack knowledges that health

care costs are 15%-20% higher because of unnecessary tests and procedures done by doctors -- the biggest issue doctors face other than dealing with medicare patients whose alcoholism toes down is their practice insurance going through the roof. so it was ignored in the creation of this bill and a lot

that's the way the doctor gets paid. so i think that there was a lot that could have been done in trying to reign in health care costs. some how the entire conversation went to controlling insurance and trying to beat up on the insurance companies. you know, i just think the conversation got by if you are indicated and not in a particularly useful way. so back to your question, which i promise to get to. of course, it's not efficient for our only health care for the poor to be delivered through emergency rooms. i think that's what you're talking about. and there should be more preventive care. however, we have a medical establishment, medicaid, who deals with these people who cannot pay their health care costs. it seems to many a more temper and practical way to approach the issue you're talking about.

2 people who can't afford it is through medicaid. give people vouchers for breast exams if that's deemed in the best interest of the patients, which up until now habit those kind of things can be voucher-driven and they could have gone through medicaid. to my mind they sort of lost the forest through the trees. and yet i agree clearly that we all have a problem here. i would say one other thing that sort of got lost in the discussion about the health care bill is that there was a great deal of conversation early on about how horrifying it was that 16% of the economy, and then 177 of the economy was -- 17% of the economy was devoted to health care expenditures. one thing to think about is that is not entirely because of an aging population, although it's heavily influence -- at my

age everyone is thinking about getting a new hip. 30 years ago that was not case. the number of prescriptions people are routinely taking, the average prescriptions in the united states have gone up i wanna say 40 over the last six or seven years. people are taking vying a grey, new drugs that weren't agree with them. but he was come motely crucial, and part of americans have made the choice. spending pun on our health care a because people can afford it and b because the medical community, which by if way the united states is successful in developing new procedures in testing and so forth, they continue to come up with things we want. so i think -- i really -- as i say, i think going back to the beginning of the conversation that the problems that were raised and the answers proposed

sort of went off track. and i don't think looking forward we've really solved -- in fact, if indeed issue really was trying to reign in health care costs, the c.b.o. has made it clear we have not done that. host: this vourtweets in this comment. vouchers are not efficient since they are only a powell trisubsidy compared to the true cost of health care coverage. >> well, then again they would be specific. i'm talking about having a men knew of choices and having that men knew apply. given the recipient's sex and age and whatever else, i think what we're looking at, i have forgotten now about how many new agencies, committees, rulings, etc are encompassed in this bill. this is not an efficient bill. host: from washington, you're on the air. caller: good morning, ladies. host: good morning.

caller: my question is if not now, then what time in the how many history are we going to be able to feet in needs of everyone? and we produce now 100 times what anybody can possibly consume because of our industry and ingenuity. it appears to me that maybe it's not so much that we can't do it. but there's an ingrained belief that we shouldn't. that everyone shouldn't be, you know, able to obtain a standard of life where all their needs are met. guest: well, i -- i think that has been the direction the country has traveled in for many years. im, we -- i mean, we basically have safety nets that provide for people when they go to retirement age. we have safety nets if you are desperately sick, you can go to

this country and be treated. we are a wealthy country, and i think that has been the decision of the electorate to provide for our needy most citizens. i think what you've seen in the last few years is concern that when you have more than 50% of the country not contributing to the -- not paying tackses. not contributing to the welfare of the country, if that number continues to grow, pretty soon, people determining the fate of the nation really don't have any the skin in the game. let me put it a different way. obviously people on the right feel the incentives should be there for people to work and earn a living. not only should they be allowed to do that, and the presumption is most people want to provide for themselves. and i think that's realistic, but they should be given the tools to do so. and so what does that mean? one of the things it means is a very good education. and unfortunately that's something we're falling down on

all over the place. so i agree with your premise that we are a wealthy nation. that we should be providing for the basic needs of our neediest citizens, whom i would categorize as people in their retirement age who have no other means of support or people who are sick. i don't think it means we should be providing for every able-bodied person to live in a nice home and travel and so forth. i'm not suggesting that we are, but i'm suggesting there's a spectrum, and i believe we're somewhere on that spectrum, and there's always going to be an argument about how far we go. >> tweeted was this all comes down to raising options like britain and france. delecks, angela on the republican line, you're next. caller: yes, i'm calling about this issue she brought up. if she does not want the healthy people to pay for

insurance then when they get sick they shouldn't be treated. i'm a republican but i'm against this. if you think it's everybody's right, guess what, if you don't pay for insurance and you get sick you shouldn't be treated. host: let's get your response. guest: if you heard the last caller, the presumption is we should always take care of our sick. i think you hit at something that's sort of vital tho to this conversation, which is individual responsibility. that's something that when you start talking about, people get for impassioned, because individual responsibility to me for example, means not being overweight well, as a country we're not about to take on overweight people and peoplize them in some way. but the elevate those people have a more likely or are more likely to be sick and have

diabetes and have other koch indicated illnesses and those of us who don't have those are going to wind up paying for them. so i understand the thrust of what they are saying which is people need take responsibility for themselves. as you know, that's a very frauth conversation. but once again, one of the shortcomings in this health care bill, some people, like governor schwarts negativer in california, have tried implement in legislation, a passage of incentives and rewards for people who do try to improve their health. an awful lot of people in this country are eating terrible food and are wildly overweight and they smoke stooned so forth. why not encourage home the go on a diet or to stop smoking, which will lower their health care costs in the long run. that seems to me like a reasonable thing.

and we didn't talk thabt in the health care bill. host: ivan a democrat in -- guest: i know you're a democrat. of course, you are. [laughter] caller: oh, i've been listening patiently to everything you've said, and a i'm just not buying any of it. think you're part of a very well-organized disinformation campaign that's been active in full. i've wanted for 10 months demall and refute congresswoman marcia back burn from tennessee. she said massachusetts has a $5 billion budget deficit because of their health care system. that was a lie and people like her and fox news and you, you take these statistics out of the air. there ought to be fact-checking. you know? it's just ridiculous. you say american people have

doubts? well, of course, they do. if i was on my way to work and i heard marcia back burn on the radio say massachusetts $5 billion, health care, i'd have doubts too. this is just -- host: what is your budget definite? massachusetts? caller: now it's climbed up but a year ago it was $800 million and marcia blackburn said $5 billion and fox news a hundred times said 6 .2 billion. guest: i actually -- first of all, you should know there are a number of sites on the internet these days that doal fact checking so it's very easy to go check on those things. i have written on massachusetts' health care bill which has been more costly than it was anticipated to be. i think you'd agree with that, right? it has been expensive. and what we've seen in the --

the numbers i'm siting come from the office of management and budget which i don't think is part of a right-wing conspiracy. and the reality is the cost of this health care bill goes up every time they look at it to about $150 billion. so it's not expected to fwend cost curve which was one of the ambitions of health care legislation. and it's also going to cover a lot fewer people than people thought. so i am not -- i actually, just for the record, i do unbelievable amount of fact checking and so does the fiscal times so we're not just picking out numbers out of the air. i don't think you'll find that the information in my columns are wrong. host: as your client uses numbers to say that the

massachusetts system has worked, he writes this in a column that the market has worked beder than expected. according to data from america's health insurance plans, the largest trade group's marginses have fallen by 40% since those reforms were put in place. nabblely, those premiums have risen by 14%. guest: i'm wondering where his starting point was, because there's no doubt rates skyrocketted in massachusetts as here before the implementation of the bill. . .

host: here is an e-mail -- guest: by the way, it is not insurance profits, which is a tiny number compared to the health care pie chart. this is a gigantic industry. again, 17% of our gdp. the pharmaceutical companies are

beneficiaries of it, doctors, hospitals. think of the number of people engaged in it. it is one of our biggest and growing unions, which is a whole different story. but in any case, i'm not sure -- i think probably the pharmaceutical companies are as big a beneficiary as anyone else. i could be wrong. it could be hospitals, too. host: robert is joining us on the independent line. caller: in comparison to the recent comments from massachusetts, about the balance that she is mincing, -- mentioning, there's one thing i would like to read. i'm basically an independent. one of the deaproblems that we e in dealing with crisis and need, for example, we feel like of

which have a roof over their head and food on their table, which are very good things. but thewe do not expect them to have a duplex in the sky, nor do we expect caviar on every table. what we are dealing with health care, that is the standard that everyone is set to. aita know if there is any way around that. -- i don't know if there is any way around that. guest: i think that is a really interesting question and a very good point. i think you are totally right. in other words, the people who are most needy, who pay nothing for their own health care, basically two reasons -- to expect and alesi these stories in the newspaper every day -- and we see these stories in the newspaper every day where they expect to have these complex, expensive procedures.

apart transplants -- heart transplants, etc. and if they get sick, how do you say no? the world out by vendors like wal-mart, cbs, etc. -- the rollout by vendors like wal- mart, cvs, etc. this is how we can see cosco des moines. -- see the costs go down. you can go into wal-mart to get your flu shot. some of these new clinics that have been established, they have a nurse practitioners that can swap your throat or your child's throat to see if they have an infection. they can diagnose minor illnesses and so forth.

i think that is huge. it is a tremendously profitable undertaking for these organizations are willing to roll these units out. and for american families that do not want to spend a gigantic amount for daily treatment it is helpful. police there are the beginnings of some commercial interest in providing low-cost medical care. not acute care, of course. not for people that are very ill, but for people that need blood pressure monitoring and that's sort of thing, i think the government should be backing this wholeheartedly. maybe that is the middle ground that we should be excited about. host: karen you are on the air with liz peek.

caller: i would like to highlight something that does not get a lot of attention with obama care, and that is, the medical loss ratio. i'm stunned that the [unintelligible] to force 15% to beat the overhead for profit and then compelled in massive collective rebate to people in the country is so be on the payout. what is next? are they going to limit my income? guest: well, they just tried to with raising taxes. i think that is an excellent point. by the way, the unintended consequence of that is some 200 companies have to get waivers from the government because their so-called mini-med plans

did not satisfy that requirement. if you're covering employees of the very large company, than 15% ratio probably makes sense. but if you are providing insurance to mcdonald's that has 30,000 workers on these so- called mini-med plants, there are two small a number of workers and it makes the 15% of a workable ratio. -- not a workable ratio. like all the giant government mandates like that, it has unintended consequences and often it simply does not work. as i mentioned before, the government already, in effect, controls are health care.

a great deal of our health care industry. many of the problems emerge because of the inherent sloppiness of government control. i think one of the problems with this bill is that it imposes a government oversight and discretion on far too many aspects of our health care industry. which we are just beginning to see things that are going wrong. obviously, one of the most egregious is the form that had to be filed -- and everybody is still puzzled how this got into this bill. every transaction of $600 or more has to have a form filed with the irs, a so-called form 1099. and the irs is saying, stop this. but we cannot possibly handle this avalanche of pipa work that will flood our offices, but so far they have not been able -- this avalanche of paperwork that

will flood our offices, but so far they have not been able to back it out. it is absurd. i think you are totally right. host: we will go on to sarah, a democrat, louisville, ky. caller: first, of like to point out to the gentleman in maryland -- i would like to point out to the gentleman in maryland that in most nations health care is a public utility. it is not allowed to be a private an unregulated industry. it is horrifying that involves what is supposedly one of the progressive and wealthiest nations on earth that we allow our underprivileged people to die simply because of lack of money for proper health care. and secondly, toomes peek, your statement -- to ms. peek, your

statement a moment ago of expecting to have the same standard of health care of people who can afford to pay for it out of their own pockets, well, certainly they do. they expect to be able to live, just as anyone with money expects to be able to live. they expect to be treated with proper and decent medical care. another point is, because of the lack of government regulation of insurance companies and drug companies and for-profit hospitals, they are running rampant. -- running rampant over our citizenry. host: 11 -- leave it there and get a response. guest: our health care industry, porter says wealthy, i

do not think that anyone is arguing -- poor verses wealthy, i do not think anyone is arguing that they should have the same health care. but the fellow that called in and said that we do not expect that in any other phase of our life, you can certainly come up with other issues, such as facelifts. part of that 17% is cosmetic surgery. should people who do not pay for anything also be entitled to cosmetic surgery? most of us would say, no. that does not seem like a basic need. are hip replacements a basic need? i do not know. i've never had one. but some people seem to get to the point where they cannot live with the pain and have to have one. other people argue that you can dedicate that pain away. it raises and into a -- you can medicate that pain away. it raises an interesting

discussion. i will tell you that if we continue on a course that we are on, we will all have our health care rationed. i think that is what goes on in great britain. your comment that the united states is one of the most progressive countries in the world, not really. we are actually one of the most conservative countries. and some of the countries in europe that have these giant budget problems, i think they are paying for some of their more liberal policies, including health care in great britain. i have a friend whose mother at age 90 or something had a shadow on an x-ray and basically, it was that she was old enough not to have to go in and get treatment for what turned out to be breast cancer and she was dead a year later. in fact, those kinds of horrifying decisions are made

when it is -- when a society decides they cannot provide the will to live in health care for every single person. i hope we never come to that. host: next will call, ogden, utah, stephen on the independent line. caller: why hasn't anybody looked at, in this day and age, socialized medicine so that everyone will get equal health care? and number two, according to the obama health care law, why is it that the government takes people who cannot afford the health insurance -- who thinks people who cannot afford health insurance can afford to pay a fine? guest: one of the problems with the health care bill is that the fine is not enough. insurance is still more expensive than paying the fine. it is an interesting question. the chances are that people will -- who do not want to buy

insurance probably will not. and they will wait for the them.ment to find thefine s to socialized medicine, and also in response to the lady that just a couple of questions, too, one of the misconceptions that came out early in our conversation about health care reform in the united states is that we do not have the best health care in the world. that is simply not true. i will tell you where that came from. there was one survey produced by -- it was the oecd or the world economic forum or one of those global organizations that rated countries on various standards, such as life expectancy, prenatal care and things like that. the heaviest part of the

waitinweighting was comparing io gdp. the united states got the nod because given how well the this -- the united states got dinged because given how well our insurance takes care of because, it was not in comparison to our gdp because not everyone has it. if you look at various diseases, the health outcome, that is, the health outcome of the treatment for various diseases, the u.s. is way ahead of its competition. if you ask people in canada why they come here for health care is because they have socialized medicine. people in europe come here because they have socialized medicine.

socialized medicine takes out incentives for the brilliance in innovation and treatment of the kind that we have here. we have attracted doctors from all over the world as a result of that system. and doctors get paid a lot more here. i do not believe in socialized medicine. i do not believe in socialized anything. like any other industry in business, you have to provide people with an incentive. and if you want to pursue that, you are to look at what happened in the state of illinois. a good portion of the state lost everything go ob/gyn. they went across the border in missouri because of the courts in southern illinois over so egregiously pro-plaintiff that the doctors in that region could not make money practicing medicine, so they basically left. it is not exactly analogous to your question, but i think you have to provide the medical

community, just like any of the committee, with an incentive to do well. host: here is a tweet. guest: employers? host: why are employers allowed to dictate our health care? guest: i do not think they are. if you do not like the health care insurance that the employer is providing, one, you can quit, and you can also opt out. host: just that being the middleman between you, the person who wants to buy the insurance and the insurance company. guest: oh, look. the reason corporations got involved in the first place is because it is economies of scale. if i want to buy insurance as an individual, it will be much more

expensive for an insurance company to minister to my needs and individual paperwork that it is 10,000 people. they can boggle the together and have cost savings and it is passed -- they can bundle that together and have cost savings and it does pass along in lower insurance rates. if you compare where you are paying compared your best friend and is working for a big company, believe me, you will be happy that they are involved. host: next call from pennsylvania. caller: i happen to be one of the poor. i was disabled halfway through college. i have medicaid.

i can tell you that recently i was sent for a consultation. and i needed a procedure done an nessun is the doctor flip open my file -- and as soon as the doctor flipped open my file and saw my car, he decided right then and there there was no problem. host: your reaction? guest: because medicare pick it up? a host: think that is what she is saying. host: i think that is what she's saying. guest: i think that is what it is therefore. i hope you feel better. and thank you for calling in. host: we will have to leave it there. coming up next, we will turn our attention to the constitution. >> it is 19 past the hour. politico reports that if a

congressman mike pence decides to run for president, he will announce his candidacy before the end of january. the sources said the indiana republican still has not decided whether he will run for president or for governor. this after lt. gov. becky settlement announced she will not run for lieutenant governor to the house concern -- health concerns. the house could be forced to return to work after christmas. peter the week between the holidays, or in a few days -- either the week between the holidays, or in a few days before the beginning of the session on january 5. if government estimates hold true, numbers will show america's population growth of dropping to its lows level in seven decades. the new figures will be used to

reapportion the house seats among the 50 states. you can watch this news conference live at 11:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span, bring you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal" our live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, policy makers and journalists. during the week, watched the coverage of the house. and every week night, congressional hearings and policy forms. on the weekends you can see our signature programs. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org. it is all searchable at our c- span video library. c-span, washington your way, a public service graded by america's cable companies.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: sanford levinson is a law professor at the university of texas and here to talk about the constitution and civil religion. you wrote a book, "constitutional faith." is it america's civil religion? guest: yes, i think it is one of the few things -- some go so far to suggest it is the only thing that bonds americans together. we do not have a common religion. we do not have a common ancestry. in 1787 it was dicey to say we even have a common language. but there were lots and lots of people who opposed the constitution, but they lost. there was the uniting around the constitution. and it has become especially prominent after world war ii

because, as a matter of fact, until world war ii, there were always critics of the constitution. i can find some sources that triggered the constitution has something extra super uber special -- treated the constitution has something extra super duper special. one of the statements i began my book with was barbara jordan's very famous speech in 1974 during impeachment hearings for richard nixon when she said, "my faith in the constitution is complete and total" and something else, i think. and that is a religious statement. >> he referred to our founding fathers. did they all agreed -- host: you referred to our founding fathers. did they all agree that there should be this faith in the

constitution? guest: no. james madison did. like most of the founders you can find him quoted on different sides of the same issue, particularly over time. but there is a very famous debate between madison and his very good friend, tock -- jefferson. jefferson was famous for saying there should be a revolution. every 19 years. he refers rather sarcastically of around 1816 to those who treat the constitution as the arc of the government. and he says, no, -- the arc of the covenant. and he says, no, it should be subjected to regular scrutiny. host: we should grow from this point. he makes the point that an adult without were the same jacket that a war -- guest: exactly right. and i should mention incidently

have hadt of the state's more than one constitution. 14 states, including four this last year, require that the voters really get to vote on whether there should be a state constitutional convention. madison basically thought it was a terrible idea. his view was that the constitution would survive only if people really did venerated. and you venerate -- did venerate it. and you venerate things in part only by having potential weaknesses. host: and lincoln wrote in 1838, --

what you think of those words? guest: you have to remember he was 24 years old there and he was an ambitious young man. he was also giving the speech in the context of some lynchings in illinois. it was an abolitionist newspaper editor, and the like. lincoln is on the cover of my book and is really the center in some ways of the book because you have this side of lincoln, let all laws be obeid, come what may. then you have president lincoln who believed it was more

important to preserve the union than to obey any individual law. he basically defies the chief justice. the emancipation proclamation that we all applaud. and he is also very famous for saying with regard to the suspension of habeas corpus, are all the laws one to go be disobeyed, this one law, come what may. host: let me read from george washington's farewell address in 1976. guest: 7096. host: excuse me. -- 1796. host: excuse me.

guest: again, you can find other quotes from washington. i edited another boat called "responding to imperfection." the title comes from a letter that he wrote to his nephew who would end up in the supreme court, saying, as all of the framers did privately, look, the constitution is not perfect. it is full of terrible compromises, one of them being slavery. and what washington told his nephew was that the good news was the future generations would

make it even better. the part of madison i'm most like is not the madison that venerates the constitution, but rather, the madison that concludes the 14th federalist papers by saying a really great thing about americans is that we are willing to strike out a new and learn lessons from experience, including learning lessons about what is not good for the qana constitution. host: i want to ask you about what this means for the declaration of independence. guest: it is an excellent question. there have always been some people who assimilate the declaration to the constitution. but there have always been just as many people who would point out that the declaration is really entirely different. the declaration was not

particularly important during certain parts of our history. the declaration is more incendiary. it not only uses the magic word "in quality," which the u.s. constitution does not -- uses the magic word ecology, which the u.s. constitution does not until the 14th -- equality, and which the u.s. constitution does not until the 14th amendment. the constitution almost of necessity becomes a much more conservative document. there are people who are not interested in overthrowing the government, but rather,

maintaining it forever and ever. host: we are talking today about the constitution and whether or not, the health care law for example, is constitutional. donald is our first caller on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: i think the constitution is a growing document the changes as the country changes. and sure do say the constitution should be amended as no longer working. host: we got your point. guest: two things about that. the first of all, i think you're absolutely correct that you cannot understand the constitution in our history of 220 years without recognizing that it is often -- has often been modified by

presidents, congress or the supreme court in order to make it more functional. john marshall in a very important decision in 1819 said that the important thing about the constitution is that iit is designed to endure. but the second part of your question i also think is equally important because i also think there are parts of the constitution that are not subject to ratification without ford -- formal amendment. -- not subject to adaptation without formal amendment. host: next phone call, los angeles, go ahead, independent line. caller: you talk about the founding fathers.

here in this system that was started, the founding fathers, they had slaves. but we had a dual system here where the economics and the thing of wanting to do what -- what is right. you have racism and slavery. you want to get the cheapest amount -- you know, get it done for the least amount. and this husband embedded -- this has been imbedded into the fabric of america now with getting cheaper workers. we ought to look at the constitution where they had africans as three-fourths of a

human being. and the minds of the people that founded this country, they were going to be good to themselves. host: ok. professor? guest: generally speaking, i do not spend much of my time in what i call founder bashing. although, i think it is always important to remember that we never would have happened if constitution -- never would have had a constitution if it were not for them. on the other hand, they were responding to the politics of 1787. they thought the choice was compromise or no constitution at all. i am much more critical of us in our own generation that i am of the framers because it seems to me that the strongest legacy they left us should have been

their own spirit of critical intelligence and learning from experience. the fact is, we do not need to make some of the compromises that they made in 1787 that we still live with today. but to go back to your main point, yes, i think that everybody who just venerates the constitution should remember the protections of slavery that are built into the constitution. host: here is a tweet. guest: that is right. there were two so-called great compromises. great always haslla overtones of irony about it. the so-called three fifths rule, which gave better representation to slave states, but the other

great compromise was giving equal representation in the senate. james madison referred to this in the federalist papers. -- in the federalist papers as a necessary evil and the reason it was necessary was because the prosecution had not submitted to the lawyers demands. -- a delaware's demands. host: jerry is a republican in kingman, arizona. good morning. jaret, are you with us? we will have to move on. robert in jacksonville, florida. caller: i lived in jacksonville,

but i have some property in georgia and i just recently received a fee, a medical service fee and a fire service fee. i want to know, is that constitutional for them to send a bill such as that? i have property there, but for me to be obligated to pay their medical and fire fee when i pay -- i live in a different state? guest: this ask for more specific legal knowledge and i have. my off-the-cuff comment with regard to fire protection, why not? if your property gets on fire, presumably, they are obligated to put it out. with regard to the medical question, that is the trickier question and i will take a pass. host: let's go to clarence.

caller: there are two questions i have for you. the tea baggers that say they want their country back, what could they possibly mean? and the second thing is -- guest: with regard to the two- party, one has to remember that is regarding two bird for a few points -- two very different viewpoints on the constitution. t party members treat the

constitution as a sacred document and claim that we should return of some sort of an original understanding. other members of the two-party -- the tea party have suggested certain constitutional amendments. quite frankly, here is where i am willing to give a half to a full tir. certainly not to reach years, but some sort of a cheer because some members of the party are to addressing whether or not the constitution needs amendment. my own view is that some fiscal of of its are not a good idea, but of these they are putting things on the table to be debated. for example, those who put up of theular amendment

senators. once they are no lugger chosen by the state legislatures, then it has very little to do with protecting the state's economy and state interests. the modern senate is nothing more than an affirmative-action program for the residents of small states. but it has nothing to do with protecting the integrity of state government. i would oppose returning to state legislatures selecting senators, but i think the debate is worth having. and i think there are people on the left who would also ask questions about, to what degree does the current structure of american politics help or hurt achieving some sort of division? your other question dealt with

the supreme court. i'm not a big fan of the current supreme court. i think the theory of original wasn't, for reasons that we do not have time to go into -- of originalism, for reasons that we don't have time to go into, does not make sense. our originalism sometimes sounds like a very strict form of fundamentalism. in my book "constitutional faith" i talk about these protestant and catholic views of the constitution. i'm not referring to the churches. but the protestant view focuses revealed and obviously refuele religion. catholicism has a more dynamic interpretation. it is not that it ignores the gospels, but you cannot understand the cup of church

without -- the catholic church without paying a lot of attention to historical development. it seems to me the only sensible way of producing it -- of viewing the constitutional development is through what i call be more catholic perspective in which you realize that you might begin with the 7087 text and understandings, crossed the 1787 text and understanding, but you cannot possibly leave it there. host: does that assume there is a correct way to interpret the constitution? guest: there are some issues that lend themselves to correct and incorrect interpretations, but the fact is that they are never litigated. one ofther book that i rod the things that i talk about his inauguration the day. -- in another book that i wrote one of the things i talk about

is inauguration day. we know when inauguration day is because of the twentieth amendment. there is no debate on what january 20 means. those sorts of issues that get to the united states supreme court, quite frankly, i do not think you can pound the table and say one interpretation is just correct and as a law professor i would give you an " f" if your on the other side. men and women of good will can be on either side. that is one of the things that makes it difficult to figure out exactly what the supreme court is to do. it would be so much easier if you could be on the table and say that the role of the supreme court is to interpret the

constitution correctly. and then you have to explain why it is that four smart people disagree with what 5 smart people believe the constitution means. host: let's go back to the phones. go ahead. caller: the constitution is the basis of america and our understanding of some of the freedoms that we have. i was wondering about the patriot act and how they sign that into law, how that affects the constitution. guest: there is some debate about the patriot act. i think it is correct to say that none of it has found to be, and constitutional prerogative it is important to distinguish arguments about constitutionality from arguments about wisdom. to go back to inauguration day, i have said that i think it is

stupid to wait until january 20. but it is certainly not unconstitutional because that is what the constitution says. the patriot act may be unwise it respects, but i'm not sure that it is unconstitutional. i want to take a quick moment for another aspect. my major criticism of the constitution previous not the title of this other burk kayaleh "our undemocratic constitution, but it works against the people in many respects. many people say it is the linchpin of democracy. in many ways i think that is false. i think the constitution works against a 20% 3 american democracy. -- a 21st century american democracy. host: next call from washington.

the go-ahead. caller: a lot of people talk about the constitution as breathing and a light and open to interpretation. and as you mentioned, it has a lot of flaws and mistakes and things of that nature. but to think about the founding fathers and to think how they had a vision when they built the constitution. the constitution is more the means to an end rather than the end itself. the vision of the forefathers seemed like the actual goal and the constitution seems kind of reaching for that goal. the one that says living and breathing, it is supposed to be moving toward that vision rather than away from it. paul. that was pollan let me add this week. -- this between an accurate

portrait guest: i certainly think that is -- let me add this tweet guest: a certainty that is tweet.but wthe to paul's comments, my favorite part of the constitution is the preamble. the important is because it sets out the importance of the constitution. this is why i do admire thomas jefferson. when you said that we are to some of the constitution it was not because of -- it was

because we should always look at to what extent was below the preamble and whether it was meeting the goals of the preamble. my view is that we ought to have the notion of the constitution as being an instrument. host: york, pa., tom on the independent line. your next. -- you are next. caller: to the gentleman that called in about slavery and being in there, that was put in there to reduce the power so they would not have as much for representatives.

the debate over slavery was right in the beginning. we were set up to be a representative republic, not a democracy. our founders were totally against democracy. it did not work. and if you do not believe me, look at the accounts in france of the french revolution. that is what democracy can bring is majority tyranny. guest: let me start with the last point first. it is something that i am often told and it is basically a correct point. the very few of the founders believed in democracy. a few did, but most did not. the caller and i agree. there are important ways that the constitution is anti- democratic. the argument that i would make

is that if you really are as anti-democratic as many of the founders and as the caller, then the united states should at least have the intellectual integrity to stop presenting itself around the world as the bastion of democracy. because quite frankly in the 21st century, most people believe that democracy has something to do with majority rule and has something to do with popular role. if, in fact, the american theory of government is who cares about majorities, who cares about what ordinary men and women think? that is indefensible point of view -- who cares about what ordinary men and women think about that is a defensible point of view. there were some people opposed to slavery. there were other people who thought it was just terrific. the caller is correct.

they would have been happiest if each slave had been counted as five human beings because they were not going to vote. the more slaves were counted, the more power southern states had. the north wanted to count them as zero human beings. the south wanted to count them as full human beings. the compromise was widely viewed at the time as a very important stop to slavery interests. it really is a self-serving view of the framers viewed them as pro abolitionists. some work. some of the ones who were opposed to the constitution -- some of them were opposed to the constitution besides the because they viewed as slavery friendly. host: 1 caller right in --

why is that? guest: if i can return to my book, "constitutional faith," as i mentioned a few minutes ago i distinguish between catholic and protestant views, and also between the court. so that what i call protestant interpretation really does focus liberalism -- literalism. it is really a return to the liberal word and a rejection of dynamism. the other aspect of this protestant and catholic example is in regard to the supreme

court. the more protestant york, the less willing you are -- the more protestant you are, the less will you are to accept the supreme court as an institution. the opinions are not definitive or final. the more you are catholic, the more you will treat the supreme court as the equivalent of the vatican. guest: to some extent that is true. a lot of the constitution is what justice jackson once called lavrentis and generalities. the best example being the due process clause. those are subject to

interpretation. these are the clauses that are litigated. but a major point of my book on democratic constitution -- of my book "undemocratic constitution" focuses on the unmitigated parts of the constitution that are not subject to the fancy, interpretive change. again, i come back because it is the clearest example, inauguration day. there is nothing i can do as a clever lawyer to persuade anybody that president should have -- president obama should have been allowed to take office on december 15 instead of january 20. because it would have been so sensible to speed up his inauguration. equal voting membership in the senate is not subject to clever lawyerly argument. host: next call is from bob in north carolina. caller: good morning, i'd like to talk to you a bit about the second amendment.

i find it interesting that the first 13 wards have been ignored or revisited by the recent supreme court ruling. and then the last 11 words about the right to keep and bear arms. what is the original meaning of these two clauses? and secondly, do you not agree that the first clause has been pretty much be raced by the supreme -- in has pretty much been erased by the supreme court? guest: the second clause -- the second amendment has been a major interest of mine. my view of the second amendment' but a a, and what makes it so truly interesting -- my view of the second amendment and what makes this so truly

interesting is that it was placed as a marker of what has to be admitted to the violent overthrow of an oppressive government. after all, that is what we did in 1776, what we thought we were doing in 1776. when they talk about a militia, i think that some people had in mind the image of minutemen in concord, lexington. and other groups of citizens. there were not necessarily thinking of the state national guard and the like. now, some people were. you mentioned the recent decision of the supreme court. my objection to those decisions is that even though i am somewhat sympathetic to their outcome, that is, the view that there is a protected constitutional right to have a firearm in one's home, a relief

found justice scalia's opinion for the court to be wildly off kilter in as much as four variety of reasons he really chose to ignore what is most allycal and i think historic w true about the second amendment, that it is designed to empower the people to overthrow a corrupt government. instead, he turned into an amendment designed to protect people only against criminals trying to invade their homes. there is no evidence that was a major purpose in 1789. it is much more radical, much more frightening or embarrassing, but it is a really interesting part of the constitution. host: next phone call is jeffrey

in sarasota, florida. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call and merry christmas to everyone. the reason i'm calling is i find this topic fascinating. i wrote about this. i would like to make two points. the first one, i found that the founding fathers basically believed in an asymmetrical government. meaning, they wanted to control power by diffusing it through the national states government and the legislature. host: jeffrey, i'm going to ask you to get your second point because you are running out of time. caller: that is the bigger point. that is, the issue of ownership. by giving the smaller states a greater say than they might

have, you have ownership in the government. as tokyo said in the 1830's, in america -- as the topa bill -- alexis de tocqueville said in the 1830's, -- in-lin host: we will have to leave it there and get a comment. guest: to give smaller states a $20 bill and those of us in larger states a $10 bill and say that we are equal, the fact is, the smaller states have an advantage for no good reason. james madison was right. the senate is a necessary evil. in 2010, denard even view it as necessary. host: